Quote from: JA37 on March 16, 2011, 05:06:30 PM

Quote from: error on March 11, 2011, 06:03:38 PM

You keep protesting that you don't, but then you keep saying you do. No less than twice in this very post.

It's not an ad hominem attack when it is TRUE. I can't take you seriously as long as you continue to advocate violence, whether you realize that that is what you're doing or not.

I'm going to assume that you're not trolling me here and explain to you that I do NOT advocate violence, or that YOU advocate the same. Call it violence if you like, but I think you'll have to be very anal retentive to do that.

First of all I'm going to assume that you agree with me that there can be long term contracts. I will provide a service for you for one year, and you'll pay me an amount of money at the end of the year. I'm also going to assume that you agree that I should get paid weather or not you used the service or not, since we have a contract.
Now, if you don't pay me at the end of the year, am I advocating violence if I try to get my money that you owe me? I mean by legal means, court, chieftains or whatever means are availible to me?

I'm going to assume you're not stupid and know what an implicit contract is too. You know, if I let you live in my house for free for a week and then say "These rules will be in effect by next monday, if you want to live here you'll have to follow them". If you don't move out the day before you've accepted the contract. Right?
Here's a little shock for you. Your parents, guardians, whatever you call them, accepted the rules of the state they live in, while they were taking care of you. Whenever you got old enough to take care of your own life and make your own decisions you had a choice. Accept the rules of the "house" you were living in, or GTFO. If you didn't GTFO you implicitly accepted the rules, and the state is no more violent than the example above. You accepted the contract and the service provider have every right to collect the money from you for the service provided, weather or not you used them.

Sorry for taking so long to answer, I'm abroad and don't have access to the internet all the time.

This example of an implicit contract is really interesting. I agree with your example above that if Caveden doesn't leave your house he is implicitly agreeing to follow your rules. But what if your rules were "If you don't leave my house by Monday next week, you agree to be my slave for life" ? Furthermore, if Caveden then replies: "No. I am a self-owner and will not agree to be yours or anyone's slave." But then he stays on past Monday. Is he then your slave? I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, I just want to clarify my understanding of your point.

The other thought I had was that while I agree with your example, I don't agree with the analogy you draw to living under The State. You, presumably, own your house. Therefore it is YOUR private property and you get to set the rules for it. By saying that The State can set the rules for everyone in its jurisdiction, you are saying that it OWNS ALL of it. This necessarily negates all private property. From previous posts it seems that you are not against private property, so I'm not sure how you could agree with the concept of an implicit social contract with the State. Am I not understanding your point?